Standing Committee A

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]

Clause 82 - Foreign surveillance operations

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 82, page 55, line 46, leave out 'for all purposes'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 73, in 
clause 82, page 55, line 44, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (5A),'.
 Amendment No. 75, in 
clause 82, page 56, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Relevant surveillance carried out by a foreign police or customs officer in the United Kingdom during the permitted period is to be lawful for all purposes only if the surveillance would otherwise be lawful under the law of that part of the United Kingdom in which it takes place notwithstanding its compliance with any conditions specified in an order made under subsection (4).'.

Nick Hawkins: Good afternoon, Mr. Hurst. I welcome you back to the Chair. We had an interesting debate this morning, as no doubt you will have heard from your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton. It was on the biggest issue so far between the two sides of the Committee. Given that we are still discussing clause 82, I thought that the Minister, slightly uncharacteristically, was a little churlish. I know that she has to behave in such a way on instructions, but it is not typical of her. I should have thought that the Government had had enough constitutional crises for one week, given the botched reshuffle and what I thought was an appalling music hall turn by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he did not take the dignity of Parliament at all seriously.
 I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister will concentrate on the more genteel and gentle part of her speech when she offered to look at the matter, and that we shall return to the usual courtesies between the two sides of the Committee. They were perhaps better represented by the information of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who had an interesting and serious point to make, than by other members of the Committee on the Government's side.

Alan Hurst: Order. We are dealing with business yet to come, rather than past business.

Nick Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I turn now to amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75. We have had such a detailed debate this morning and so much ground was covered, that I can probably speak briefly not only to this group of amendments, but subsequent groups. That will probably suit the Minister, the Whip and other members of the Committee. The three
 amendments run together. They would ensure that hot surveillance in the United Kingdom was lawful only if it was lawful under the UK law if carried out not by a foreign police or Customs officer, but a British officer. We want the Bill to state explicitly that overseas police or Customs officers must at all times stick to the same rules of lawful surveillance as our police or Customs officers. I do not want to repeat all that has been said about the clause, but surely that must be the better option.
 There is a danger that if the Bill was unamended, the Government could end up with a lot of egg on their face. I referred earlier to the investigations into the Brinks-Mat case and the tragic consequences of the murder of a police officer. The Minister did not seem to understand my argument this morning, so I shall briefly stress it again. I have had a personal briefing with the detective chief superintendent at Scotland Yard, who was in charge of the case. Even in the most serious criminal investigations when the greatest possible care was taken, as it was in the Brinks-Mat case, things can still go wrong. 
 This morning, the Minister was praying in aid, as part of her argument in defence of the Government's position, that due to the fact that only the most expert surveillance officers of the most serious crime would be involved, care would be taken. I then referred to the case of Kenneth Noye, who murdered a police officer who was acting properly while undertaking covert surveillance. That operation should not have gone wrong, but it did because the police were dealing with a serious and violent criminal. 
 I have had discussions with senior law enforcement officers from America whom I met during the Easter recess when I was in Greece. I was there in my capacity as a shadow Home Office Minister, meeting our ambassador and consul in Greece to discuss the serious case of the British lorry driver who had been arrested in Patras because illegal immigrants had been found in his lorry. He was put on trial within hours of his arrest. He was not given an English-speaking lawyer. A jeweller who spoke some English was pressed into service as the court interpreter. The lorry driver, David Wilson, was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. That showed our concerns about foreign jurisdictions even within the European Union, but that is a point to which we shall return under other legislation. 
 While I was in Greece, by coincidence I met a couple of senior sheriffs from America, who were in Greece to try to extradite someone back to that country for the most serious offences of counterfeiting and drugs smuggling. They were from Tocoma in Washington state. They said that they were happy for me to use the international experiences that they described as examples when we debated matters of international co-operation and extradition. 
 The sheriffs said that we must be aware that, however careful the forces of law and order may be, things can still go wrong. I hope that, the second time around, the Minister will understand my argument. It is a response to her praying in aid in support of the Government's position that such matters are serious and will always be dealt with carefully. I accept that 
 they will be, but things can still go wrong. That is why additional safeguards are needed.

Caroline Flint: Thank you and welcome back to our proceedings, Mr. Hurst.
 Surveillance in the United Kingdom is strictly governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA. The purpose of inserting proposed new section 76A(5) is to make lawful under both European convention on human rights and United Kingdom law cross-border surveillance operations that have originated in other Schengen states. That type of surveillance would not contravene the fundamental rights protected by ECHR and UK law. 
 The amendment would require the lawfulness of the surveillance to be conditional on similar surveillance being lawful if undertaken in the UK. However, under the Schengen convention, the surveillance must be automatically lawful in the UK, provided that it was lawful in the country in which it started and that it meets the conditions specified under article 40.2. The amendment goes against the concept of automatic authorisation and that is why we resist it. 
 It is important to remember that surveillance will be automatically authorised only in limited circumstances. First, it must be lawful in the country of origin. Foreign officers will be obliged to contact UK police as soon as the border has been crossed. Secondly, that type of urgent surveillance may carried out only if the person under surveillance is suspected of having committed one or more of a limited number of serious offences, including murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, aggravated burglary and robbery, extortion, kidnapping, trafficking in human beings, illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and so on. 
 Thirdly, cross-border surveillance under the Bill will be subject to strict conditions reflecting the wording of the Schengen convention. Those conditions include the ban on foreign officers conducting surveillance on private property. The phrase ''lawful for all purposes'' does not mean that foreign officers can disregard UK law. Article 40 of the Schengen convention states that officers carrying out surveillance in another member state must comply with the laws of the territory in which they are operating. 
 We are satisfied that the safeguards in place are sufficient and that there is nothing to be gained by foreign officers conducting unauthorised or unlawful surveillance, since that would undermine the relationships that are essential for the effective functioning of the Schengen convention.

Nick Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says. Obviously, she has a Government brief from her officials that she has to stick to. I do not want to detain the Committee by pressing the matters further, because a lot of ground was covered by the debate that we had before lunch. However, I am sure that she understands that there are still matters, including the previous vote on which we disagreed. I do not think that any purpose would be served by taking the matter
 any further today. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
clause 82, page 56, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Nothing in this section shall render lawful the carrying of a firearm within the United Kingdom by a foreign police or customs officer.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in
clause 82, page 56, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Nothing in this section shall render lawful the carrying of a firearm within the United Kingdom by a foreign police or customs officer except with the permission of either— 
 (a) the Secretary of State acting personally, or 
 (b) a chief officer of police acting personally. 
 (5B) the permission to carry a firearm referred to in subsection (5A) may only be given in circumstances in which it would be given to a constable acting under the law of the United Kingdom. 
 (5C) Where the permission to carry a firearm is given to a foreign police or customs officer under this section, then that firearm may only be used reasonably and in self-defence.'.

Nick Hawkins: The amendments would insert a new subsection to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that nothing in the clause would render lawful the carrying of a firearm within the UK by foreign police or Customs officers. That must be right. The Government have already said that they do not propose to make that lawful, so the amendment would introduce an avoidance of doubt provision. Lord Stoddart of Swindon spoke about that powerfully at column GC203 when the Bill was in Grand Committee in another place. I know that the Minister and her officials will be aware of what he said so I shall not labour the point by repeating it.
 As Committee members will realise, amendments Nos. 76 and 77 are alternatives to one another. If the Government cannot go so far as to accept amendment No. 76, another way round is to accept amendment No. 77. That would would, in exceptional circumstances, provide for the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary or a chief police officer—the provision could not be delegated, so it would have to be one of them—to give personal permission to carry a firearm in circumstances where such permission would have been given to a UK officer, but only if the discharge of that firearm is to be used in self-defence or otherwise reasonably.

David Heath: I welcome you, Mr. Hurst, to the last sitting of the Committee.
 We need to make it clear that foreign police officers should not be in a position to carry firearms in this country. That is the traditional view on policing, which is doubly relevant when we are talking about an officer who is not under the direct command of a British police force. The Lords agreed that that point is not clear in the Bill, which is why the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has tabled a clarifying amendment. [Interruption.] I turn round and am surprised see that the hon. Gentleman is not in his seat at such an early stage in the debate, and that has rather put me off. I apologise. The fact that police officers cannot, and have no lawful authority to, carry 
 a firearm is clear. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, for the avoidance of doubt, there would be some benefit to be had from writing that into British law. 
 I hope that the Minister will address what the Schengen handbook says about the clause. Some parts of the Schengen handbook may need to be rewritten to accommodate the United Kingdom. I appreciate that that would not be easy to accomplish. I am not sure, but I think that we are unique among member states of the European Union in having a police force that is not routinely armed. I cannot think of another state where police officers are not routinely armed. 
 I am not sure what the Schengen handbook says about carrying arms between countries. A land border unmarked by customs or border controls is, of course, very different from the position in the United Kingdom. I think that the duties on carriers would, in any case, prevent a person bearing a firearm from boarding a ship, train or aeroplane in continental Europe that was destined to go somewhere in the United Kingdom. If that is not so, the Schengen handbook should explicitly draw attention to the fact that an officer would not be able to carry a firearm if entering the United Kingdom. That would be sensible as it would allow everyone to understand our system and would make us more compatible with the systems that apply elsewhere. 
 Setting aside what I just said about the carriers' duty to prevent someone from boarding with a firearm, the officers are not exempted from going through our border and passport controls when they reach British shores. That results in a rather odd situation, whereby someone trying not to draw attention to themselves would have not only to pass through passport control, but declare that they were carrying a firearm and have to surrender it to the relevant authorities at the port of entry. That is not conducive to covert surveillance; in fact, it would pose operational difficulties. 
 For all those reasons, we need clear protocols with our European partner states on what is permissible in Britain. We often talk about ''l'exception fran¢aise''; this provision is a matter of the English exception. We do not police in the same way as other countries do. We do not have a gendarmerie as most other European countries do, and we do not have arms-bearing policemen. We have to make allowances for that, both in law and in our arrangements with other countries.

Mark Simmonds: There are one or two points that I would like the Minister to clarify about the amendments and the practicalities to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) alluded. In November 1999, one of the Minister's predecessors said in a letter to the Select Committee on European Scrutiny that the Government had
''therefore indicated that it will be necessary for arrangements to be made to allow the surrender and storage of weapons carried by police officers on entry to the UK.''
 To whom will the firearms be handed in? The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the 
 farcical situation in which someone supposed to be undertaking covert surveillance handed over a firearm. The Minister also made a point this morning about the unexpected nature of the pursuit that may occur, so it is possible for a police officer from the continent who happens to be carrying a firearm to come unexpectedly to the United Kingdom. 
 As I understand the clause, it will not be necessary for the foreign police officer to contact a member of the British surveillance organisation until he is in the UK, by which time he has entered the country with the firearm, and is undertaking surveillance. How do those parallel events work together? Presumably the foreign police officer cannot be expected to dump the firearm on the channel tunnel train or over the side of a ferry while following someone. 
 If a system were to be organised so that someone collects the firearms as they come into the UK, surely the foreign police officer would hand the firearms to a UK police or customs officer. If that were so, I would have thought it possible to ensure that UK surveillance teams could follow the people coming into the UK. That would make the clause unnecessary.

Caroline Flint: We must be careful on this issue. I take what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said about amendment No. 76 and its alternative, amendment No. 77. However, we have to be pretty clear about whether firearms should be brought in. The view of the Government is that they should not. Amendment No. 77 worries me. Earlier today, there was much debate about stopping or questioning a subject, and we all agreed about what should not happen. However, the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that, despite the agreement on the other issue, one could bring a gun into the country and possibly discharge it.

Nick Hawkins: I think that I made the position clear. What I said—and I am sure that Hansard will bear me out—is that amendment No. 77 is a fall-back position in case the Government are not happy with the blanket ban in amendment No. 76. That is how I put the matter, and that is how the argument was advanced in another place, as the Minister is well aware. She really should not say that we are welcoming the idea; we are simply trying to assist the Government by giving them an either-or proposition. Our main contention appears in amendment No. 76, which would ensure a blanket ban. It would be fine if the Government preferred that amendment, but we might need something else for the purposes of clarification.

Caroline Flint: I would like to make it absolutely clear that it is illegal for anyone, including overseas police officers, to bring a firearm into the UK, let alone carry it loaded on their person without the appropriate authority from the Home Secretary and an import licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government are absolutely firm that foreign officers will not be able to bring guns into the UK while conducting urgent cross-border surveillance operations under the provisions of clause 82. That is important. If it is necessary to bring in firearms, that should be done through formal authorisation. That would go against this part of the Bill, which addresses
 surveillance where there has not been enough time to contact the necessary authorities.
 I turn to other points that hon. Members raised. A question was asked about the Schengen handbook. When the UK has joined, it will have to be amended to make it clear that guns cannot be carried. I understand that a couple of other member states that have land borders that adjoin each other will make the same representations, and insist on the same regulations and practices regarding that issue. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised a fair point about the practicalities of the arrangements for guns. It will be possible to hand guns in at the point of departure for the UK, and the Schengen handbook will make it clear that guns have to be handed over. 
 Many surveillance operations will not involve only one police officer following one individual; there might be other police officers, back-up officers and so forth. However, if an operation reaches a point at which officers have to follow the person under surveillance on to a boat or a plane—or whatever—they will have to make arrangements within their team, and understand their obligations under the Schengen handbook and our firm decision not to allow foreign police officers to bring guns in under such circumstances. They will have to hand over their guns to other team members before they follow the person under surveillance. 
 The situation will be the same for our armed officers urgently following suspects abroad. If the country to which they are travelling refuses to let them carry their weapons, the commander of the operation will have to assess the situation and decide, on the basis of the risks, whether to deal with the suspect in this country or to allow the officers to proceed without their guns. 
 We have been in discussions with the police about this, and they have welcomed the measure. We have consulted the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, and they are satisfied that we are clear about our position on firearms coming into this country under this clause. Foreign surveillance operations will be covered by the Schengen handbook: there is no cause for concern about this.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. She has returned to her more normal, businesslike and courteous responses to our serious amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. No. 78, in
clause 82, page 56, leave out lines 8 to 10.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 79, in 
clause 82, page 56, line 9, leave out 'incidental to' and insert 'a necessary element of'.
 Amendment No. 80, in 
clause 82, page 56, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(6A) A foreign police or customs officer carrying out relevant surveillance under this section is a ''public authority'' for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) (public authorities). 
 (6B) Nothing in this section shall have the effect of disapplying, or removing any civil liability under, any provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to a foreign police or customs officer.'.

Nick Hawkins: Amendment No. 78 would delete subsection (6), which addresses civil liability. We cannot see any reason for exempting such officers from civil liability. My point on this is slightly different from those that we have debated so far in relation to this clause. A foreign police or Customs officer might get caught up in something, which could be as ''normal'' as a road accident or damage to property, and which could lead to a civil claim under our civil law. Why should a UK citizen who was adversely affected by that be debarred from bringing a civil claim?
 What if a foreign officer who was conducting surveillance on this side of the channel suddenly forgot which side of the road they should be driving on and caused an accident? The situation could be as minor as that. I am sure that many UK citizens in France have occasionally got confused at roundabouts, and ended up on the wrong side of the road, and that could happen in our country when a foreign police or Customs officer is concentrating too much on the surveillance, and not enough on their driving. 
 In practice, the civil liability would not be against the foreign Customs or police officer personally if they were executing their duty. If they were conducting surveillance, the tab would be picked up—if I may put it in that colloquial way—by the relevant Government or authorities in accordance with the rules that apply in the country in which they were operating. 
 Amendment No. 79 offers the Government an alternative to amendment No. 78, because it would give the exemption, but only for matters that are strictly necessary for the surveillance, rather than incidental to it. 
 Amendment No. 80 addresses civil liability in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998. Conservative Members have repeatedly drawn attention to what we have always foreseen would be the malign consequences—particularly the huge cost to the British taxpayer—of the Government's incorporation of that Act into our law. This is another potential difficulty. 
 However, for at least as long as this Government are in power, we will be stuck with the current situation. A lot of my constituents repeatedly write to me to say that the biggest single problem that this Government have created is the introduction of Human Rights Act legislation, because it is leading to many civil claims that cost the taxpayer a fortune. Many of my constituents strongly hold that view. They see all the headlines, particularly in our broadsheet newspapers and our middle-market tabloids, stating that there is a huge cost to our legal aid budget and the British taxpayer that is entirely due to the 
 compensation culture that has been introduced and the fact that people are now able to bring what are sometimes specious and fatuous claims under the broad heading of human rights. That is not what the human rights legislation was intended to bring about. 
 Members of all parties support human rights. The argument is whether the Government, by choosing this legislative route, have gone the right way about protecting those rights, or whether by choosing that route they are—as we warned them from the outset—opening the floodgates of huge costs to the British taxpayer, especially in litigation that might not otherwise have been brought, might not have been proper to bring, might be wasting a huge sum of money, and might be specious. The Government must carry the can for that. 
 However, for as long as the Government are in power, the Human Rights Act 1998 will be in our law, so British citizens should have its protection in relation to civil liability. It is on that basis that, in another place and now in this House, we have moved amendment No. 80. 
 With regard to the alternatives, my preference is to persuade the Government to accept amendment No. 78, which would delete subsection (6).

Alistair Carmichael: I have often wondered what sort of person would vote for the hon. Gentleman, and we have now been offered an illuminating insight into the people who have sent him here, courtesy of his postbag, which brims with letters from ''outraged of Surrey Heath'' fulminating against the financial excesses caused by the Human Rights Act. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will write to his constituents, in his usual fair-minded way, to put the record straight by explaining, as he did to the Committee today, why it is important that we have that Act.

Stephen Hesford: Did the hon. Gentleman detect, as I did, that in what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was saying there seemed to be an implied assertion that if there were a different Government the Human Rights Act would be repealed?

Alistair Carmichael: I fear that if I indulged in the wild speculation that answering that question would require, I might well find myself incurring your wrath, Mr. Hurst, and being out of order. It is an interesting question, but there may be a more appropriate forum in which to discuss it.
 Having belittled the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I should say that I think he has a good point on the civil liability issue. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister the rationale behind the inclusion of subsection (6). The hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested that normally, as long as someone is acting within their terms of employment, the tab—as he put it—would be picked up by the employer by virtue of vicarious liability. My recollection is that vicarious liability attaches only where there is a personal liability in the first place. In fact, there might even be a theoretical right of relief between the employer and the employee. 
 Under the provisions, citizens who suffer loss or injury might have no recourse to compensation through the courts, although that would be available in different circumstances, and for no apparent reason. The provision would mean that if a person crashed into a car, it would be a bit of a lottery as to what the victim could get as a result. I look forward to hearing the rationale behind the subsection.

Caroline Flint: This is a complex subject that was debated in the other place. It might be helpful if I explained why we need subsection (6). Its provisions are aimed at ensuring that civil liability does not arise in relation to the conduct of foreign officers undertaking emergency surveillance for up to five hours, when that conduct would be incidental to the surveillance. By ''incidental'', we mean conduct that is inextricably associated with the surveillance, to the extent that it is effectively unavoidable if the surveillance—which would have to be lawful surveillance—is to continue.
 I must stress that ''incidental conduct'', as defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, covers an extremely narrow set of circumstances. It would not cover any conduct that was not essential if the surveillance were to continue. The provision does not exempt foreign officers from civil liability entirely. 
 It may help if I give an example of what would constitute conduct incidental to covert surveillance. An undercover officer might follow the suspect into a shopping centre or supermarket. As the officer would have no intention of shopping, he could technically be considered to be committing trespass. The subsection would give a foreign officer legal protection in those circumstances. That is consistent with protection granted to domestic surveillance officers under RIPA. 
 There is clearly concern as to whether there is an avenue of redress for those affected by incidental conduct. No provision is made in the Bill in relation to conduct by foreign officers that is simply incidental to lawful surveillance. That is no different from the existing situation for domestic officers under RIPA. To make special provision for incidental conduct in those circumstances would mean treating foreign officers differently from domestic officers, and that would not make sense. 
 However, I do not believe that that should be a cause for concern, because the issues that cause members of the British public concern are covered in other ways. As I explained earlier, incidental conduct covers an extremely narrow set of circumstances, and it is difficult to imagine how it might give rise to a claim for damages. Any conduct likely to give rise to a claim—such as, for example, an officer from France driving on the wrong side of the road and knocking someone down—would be classed as accidental, not incidental. 
 Clause 84 is intended to provide an avenue of redress in such circumstances for the victim of any damage other than that arising from incidental conduct that is caused during the emergency surveillance period. The clause provides that that liability would fall on the director general of the 
 National Criminal Intelligence Service, against whom the victim would make a claim for damages. 
 In the unlikely event of damage occurring as a result of incidental conduct, it would be for the courts to determine whether the conduct was indeed incidental, and consequently whether damages should be sought. We would expect the courts to take a narrow view of what might constitute incidental conduct. 
 As I have already said, the key to Schengen cross-border surveillance arrangements is reciprocity. We need to provide foreign officers with the same protection as that afforded to UK officers undertaking domestic surveillance. Otherwise, we could find that other member states do not provide the same protection for our officers. That is what the clause provides for. Article 43 of the Schengen convention sets out arrangements on civil liabilities, so we can expect reciprocal arrangements for our officers operating abroad in similar circumstances. I do not think that the amendments would bring any additional clarity. 
 On amendment No. 80, the Human Rights Act 1998 established in UK law our obligations as a signatory to the European convention on human rights. Those obligations apply to public authorities. Foreign officers acting under section 76A are public authorities under the 1998 Act. Under the 1998 Act, a public authority is any person who has at least some functions of a public nature. Policing in the UK is obviously a responsibility of UK police officers, but under this clause we are effectively delegating, for a fixed period of time and subject to specific conditions, that role to foreign officers in situations where as a matter of practicality UK officers cannot immediately take over the surveillance operation. Foreign officers acting under section 76A are therefore public authorities under the 1998 Act, and the amendment is unnecessary. 
 The second new subsection (6B) would ensure that nothing in the clause would have the effect of disapplying any provision of the 1998 Act in relation to a foreign police or customs officer. That is also unnecessary. There is nothing in section 76A that could disapply or remove liability from anyone under the Human Rights Act. In addition, I can confirm that in schedule 5 we are amending RIPA to provide that the RIPA tribunal can deal with challenges to surveillance by foreign officers under section 76A.

David Heath: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation, and it will repay careful study. Crucial to it was the definition that she wants to introduce, and the difference between incidental and accidental. Is there any source material to suggest that that would stand up as a legal distinction? I am unfamiliar with it, which is not surprising, but it is surprising that my legally trained colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), had not heard of it either.

Caroline Flint: Obviously, new research is the basis of the conclusion. I shall attempt to provide the hon.
 Gentleman with a clear outline of the source on which we based our conclusions.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as I am trying to help her by giving her time to receive a note that is being given to her, which she had not noticed.
 Not only are the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Orkney and Shetland, who is legally qualified north of the border, unfamiliar with the distinction, so am I. The Minister will tell us in a moment what her officials have advised her, but it would be helpful if, on this important area of civil liability and whatever her note says, she writes to all Committee members on this matter. It is important to explore in detail civil liability and the issue of whether something is incidental germane to an operation or accidental.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If we can throw light on issues during the course of our proceedings, that will be helpful. I am advised that incidental conduct is defined by RIPA. We are not aware of any case law to date because the definition is linked to new legislation. I will write to Committee members to give them more detail to use in further discussions on the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: That is enormously helpful of the Minister, and we look forward to receiving the letter. Will she and her officials try to get that letter to us—the hon. Gentlemen who speak for the Liberal Democrats, other Committee members and I—with sufficient time remaining before the final stages of the Bill's consideration in the House of Commons so that we have an opportunity to decide whether we need to return to the matter. The Minister is nodding, which I am happy to see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in
clause 82, page 56, line 19, leave out 'five hours' and insert 'one hour'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 82, in
clause 82, page 56, line 20, after 'enters', insert 
 'the airspace, territorial waters or, in the case of land entry, the customs area of'.

Nick Hawkins: I can speak to the amendments briefly. As the Minister and perhaps some Committee members are aware, they address matters that were debated at length in another place. There was much discussion about how long the notice should be, how long channel ferries, hovercraft and hydrofoils take and whether five hours was too long. In another place, Ministers said—I shall summarise—that five hours was the sort of provision envisaged in the protocol. However, I know that my noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow questioned that. Well, who knows? Given that so much of the continental system is decimal, perhaps it is because five is half of 10. We did not get to the bottom of the matter, other than reference being made to the handbook and protocol. I was not happy with those answers, which is why we tabled the amendment. However, we are covering much of the
 ground that was covered in another place, and I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating it. The Minister knows where we are coming from, as will other members of the Committee if they read the reports of debates in another place.
 Amendment No. 82 seeks clarification about the start of borders. We want to insert 
''the airspace, territorial waters or, in the case of land entry, the customs area of''.
 It must be sensible to seek clarification. Their Lordships had a long debate about the matter, and Lord Stoddart of Swindon made some sensible points.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is making a good point. Entry through the channel tunnel is a confusing element. I think that a previous Home Office Minister stated that the time will not start until a foot is put on UK soil. The channel tunnel boundary is halfway across the channel, so the time spent in UK space could be longer than five hours as a result of the time difference.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend, like me, has examined the debates held in another place. He makes a valid point. Their Lordships dealt with covert surveillance operations—not operations in the sense that people under surveillance are not supposed to know that they are being watched, but in the even more serious circumstances where an undercover police officer or an undercover Customs officer is pretending to be one of the criminal gang. There was much discussion in another place about how easy or otherwise it would be for someone who was part of the gang to get in touch and at what point the period might run in those difficult circumstances.
 We are talking about the most serious criminals. I take the opportunity to pay tribute both to our Customs services and our police services for the number of successes that they have achieved against some of the serious international criminals in the drugs area and elsewhere. One of the interesting aspects of my work is that sometimes I receive confidential briefings, as I have had from the head of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, about the extent of international crime and how it is changing. 
 We are aware of the bravery of police and Customs officers, especially if they go undercover to break up rings. It is often done by way of covert undercover surveillance that involves pretending to be part of the gang. In my years at the Bar, I had some experience of that. I was involved in a conspiracy to murder case, which was broken because the man who allegedly—according to the criminals—would be working with the hit man, turned out to be an undercover police officer. I remember vividly that much of the evidence on the prosecution side revolved round a pub, the Station hotel at Blisworth, Northamptonshire. Almost every customer in the pub was an undercover police officer. The landlord must have had bumper trade that evening. I stress that, particularly in undercover matters, time limits and national boundaries are sensitive matters.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that the provision covers undercover officers. It does
 not, and that was explained in the other place. The Schengen convention covers the basic bread-and-butter covert surveillance work of law enforcement officers. It does not deal with infiltration of organised gangs by undercover officers. That is why it is proposed in the Bill only to amend the surveillance provision under the RIPA. Infiltration operations are covered by covert human intelligence sources provisions under the Act. I must make that clear, so that there is not confusion about the surveillance that we are supporting.

Nick Hawkins: I understand that. I listened to the debate on such matters in another place. The Minister was right to refer it. However, she said earlier that surveillance means just that. The Government must be careful when they say that the Bill covers only one sort of surveillance, not another. While such distinctions are made in RIPA, it does not mean that those same distinctions will be made under all the Bills that will implement the Schengen handbook in other countries. Our legislation may do so, but there is no guarantee that another EU country that is party to Schengen has the same distinction. I raised the point because the Minister said that surveillance just means what it says, but there are different types of surveillance. I leave it there. I have put on the record that the worries that were expressed in another place still exist, but I will be interested to hear what the hon. Lady says.

Alistair Carmichael: Taken individually, I find little that I can support in the amendments. Taken together, they would render the whole clause virtually inoperable. For that reason, I cannot support them.
 Amendment No. 82 would render it difficult for the surveillance officer to know where he was. I do not know about the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—[Interruption.] He may well have been advised to leave his place.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have the hon. Member for Surrey Heath under surveillance, as he keeps leaving the Committee?

Alistair Carmichael: No, I do not agree. There are some things in life that I am happier not knowing.
 With regard to the operation of surveillance under amendment No. 82, at what point does a person enter airspace? I know from my own bitter experience of dealing with fishing cases in a previous life that it is even more difficult to know where a person is on a particular stretch of water. Are we to expect that, if a person is a surveillance officer pursuing someone on an aeroplane, as well as being given the 10-minute warning that the plane is about to land, he will be told that he has entered United Kingdom airspace? Will the man in row 4d set his watch because his one hour is ticking? 
 My constituency has good links with the continent; we have a ferry link between Copenhagen, Lerwick and the Faeroe Islands. Presumably, on that basis, anyone who was being observed transporting drugs from Copenhagen to the Faeroe Islands—which is not inconceivable—would become subject to the provisions of the Bill as soon as he entered United 
 Kingdom territorial waters. A person needs at least an hour to get to Lerwick harbour from the limits of United Kingdom territorial waters—probably rather more—and thereafter his time has expired. Therefore, if the suspect chose to leave the ship in Lerwick harbour, there would be nothing that the surveillance officer could do. 
 It is not clear why the hon. Member for Surrey Heath thought it necessary to table the amendment. Limiting the appropriate period from five hours to one hour would be a wrecking amendment. Five hours is not excessive. We must consider the practical implications of what is involved. My observation may be modest, but the point at which a person enters the United Kingdom will eventually have to be judicially defined. It is not in the Bill. However, there is only so much that can be covered in a Bill. I do not find the amendments helpful.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, because he laid out clearly some problems with the amendments. They would prevent us from properly implementing our participation in the Schengen convention and trying to achieve our aims in combating crime without borders. I refer to amendment No. 81. Article 40.2 of the Schengen convention, which the clause implements, provides for a grace period of five hours, during which surveillance may be continued across a national boundary under urgent circumstances.
 My understanding is that the reason given was that five hours was thought to be sufficient time for the authority of the receiving member state to respond to immediate notification from the incoming officers signalling that the border had been crossed, and for the receiving member state to take over the surveillance or send one of its officers to the scene to accompany the officers from the foreign member state. That is crucial when dealing with serious criminals. 
 I think that there is general agreement that foreign officers may, on rare occasions, need to cross the border into the United Kingdom to continue surveillance. We anticipate that they will be picked up by UK officers as soon as possible; if, for example, the foreign officer came into the country via Calais, and the suspect was going to London, there would be a port at which that could happen. We feel strongly that a one-hour time limit might frustrate the large amount of work that goes into surveillance operations, and would be of no help. 
 I remind hon. Members that the arrangements are reciprocal. There will be occasions on which UK officers will need to use the arrangements to follow a suspect who travels abroad at short notice, and we could hardly expect foreign colleagues to give us the benefit of the full five hours if we did not reciprocate. It is important that the provision stays as it is. 
 On amendment No. 82, we appreciate the arguments put forward for setting a specific point at which the UK border may be considered to be crossed, but as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland eloquently said, how do we decide when that border is 
 crossed? Police officers may have training and professionalism, but they cannot know, when travelling on an aeroplane, boat or train, the exact moment when they enter British airspace or waters. 
 For reasons that have already been outlined, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary and would jeopardise the good intentions behind the clause. The amendment does not take into account the complex nature of maritime law. The Government's approach provides a point that can be readily identified by officers and that will not be so complex to discern that they are distracted from the operation in hand. The clause protects the interests of the United Kingdom. 
 Those are the reasons why we have used the words ''enters the United Kingdom'' in the clause. We will consider the UK to have been entered when the foreign officer arrives at a port or airport or, in the case of Eurostar, when the train leaves the tunnel and enters Kent. Legally and practically, that is the simplest approach, for reasons that we have outlined.

Nick Hawkins: I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was so critical of our amendments, given the tenor of debates on the matter in another place. Once again, his noble Friends did not have the same strong views about the amendments. Indeed, there was a suggestion that they understood where we were coming from, but as I said this morning when I was teasing the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, it should not surprise us that the Liberal Democrats do not necessarily say the same thing in both Houses of Parliament.
 I do not think that it will profit the Committee to spend any more time debating the matter. There is a difference of view, but we do not want to be accused of seeking to undermine the basis of the clause. Baroness Anelay of St. John's and others voiced our serious concerns in the other place. In some cases, those concerns were shared fairly widely. The Minister has almost inevitably provoked a battle between the Commons and the Lords, so unless the Government come up with a different form of words in relation to the matter that we voted on this morning, that issue will go back to the Lords again, and I have no doubt that this subject will be returned to as well. I shall not take up any more of the Committee's time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I have a couple of extraordinarily tedious questions to ask. They follow on from points that I have made before, and they will enable the Minister to add another paragraph to the letter that she has already promised me.
 In the clause, a ''United Kingdom officer'' is defined as 
''(a) a member of a police force;
(b) a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;
(c) a member of the National Crime Squad''—
 et cetera. I wonder why a sworn constable is not included. Does 
''a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service''
 include those officers of NCIS who are not constables? The situation with NCIS may have changed since I was involved with it quite a few years ago, but at one time police officers acting for NCIS were seconded from territorial forces and were able to return to their force at the end of their service with NCIS. There were also people working for NCIS in an investigative capacity who were not police officers. I do not know whether this is intended to catch both categories, or whether it addresses police officers employed by NCIS on a temporary or permanent basis. 
 My other point is rather tedious, but it might be important to be clear about it. The clause refers to a 
''police or customs officer . . . who . . . is an officer for the purposes of—
(a) Article 40 of the Schengen Convention''.
 That makes me wonder about the status of the police forces in the Crown territories and the British overseas territories. Those places are potential ports of entry to the United Kingdom. The Bailiwicks of Guernsey or Jersey offer a way of getting from France to the United Kingdom. The case of Gibraltar might involve more of substance, because I am unsure whether that territory is brought within Schengen by virtue of these arrangements.

Nick Hawkins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that we tabled on Tuesday of this week—but debate today—new clause 9, which deals with some matters relating to overseas territories and returns to an issue that his noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and others referred to in another place. I wanted to alert the hon. Gentleman to that, in case he had not spotted it.

David Heath: I noticed that, but this is the other way around: the new clause is reciprocal to that.
 I wish to establish whether it is the case that police officers acting in those territories are not given the same opportunities as a French, German, Dutch or Slovenian officer. Would a constable on Jersey not be able to catch the hydrofoil—or whatever the right craft is nowadays—into Devon to conduct surveillance of a suspect, whereas a gendarme who alighted at St. Helier on the way could do so? If that is the case, it is bizarre—but perhaps it is not. 
 A lot of people might be interested in what the relationship is between the Guardia Civil or the other Spanish police authorities and the Gibraltar police—which is a United Kingdom police force that is situated in Gibraltar. I will understand if the Minister does not have a reply to that at present. I am sorry to keep bothering her with inquiries about these Crown territories and British overseas territories but the points that I am raising tend to get forgotten—unless someone asks about them—and then about 10 years later we find that there is a major crisis because no one thought to ask the sensible questions.

Caroline Flint: There is no one statutory definition of ''constable'' for historical reasons: that term refers to a person who holds the office of a constable. We are using the term ''police force'' as we are involved in the creation of statute.
 We will write to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome further about NCIS members to clarify his point. 
 With regard to Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar, it is my advice that they are not participating in these parts of Schengen, and therefore this will not apply.

David Heath: So I am right in my surmise that a police officer in Jersey will not have the opportunity to go on to the UK mainland—let alone to France—on the same basis as a French gendarme?

Caroline Flint: I understand that that is the case, but I shall check.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 83 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to. 
 Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to. 
 Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Supplementary and consequential provision

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in
clause 92, page 61, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 84, in 
clause 92, page 61, line 28, leave out from 'section' to 'House' in line 29 and insert 
 'proposed to be made by the Secretary of State is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each'.
 Amendment No. 115, in 
clause 92, page 61, line 31, leave out from 'order' to 'is' in line 32.
 Amendment No. 85, in 
clause 92, page 61, line 41, at end add— 
 '(9) This section shall cease to have effect at the end of one year beginning with the date on which it comes into force.'.

Nick Hawkins: All four amendments relate to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny and the future of the legislation.
 Amendment No. 114 would leave out clause 92(3). We think that subsection (3) is far too wide a power—a Henry VIII power. It was said in another place—I think by one of the noble Friends of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—that in Scotland such a power should be named after the title of a famous Scottish play. I do not know whether theatrical bad luck applies to parliamentarians, but I shall not make the mistake of one noble Lord by naming the play. I am sure that those of us who have had links with the theatre will know what I mean. 
 The provisions under clause 92(3) are far too wide, give far too much unfettered discretion and we want them deleted. Our argument will be familiar not only to the Minister but to all Committee members. The 
 Minister knows that we are never keen on Henry VIII-type powers. 
 Amendment No. 115 would cut out part of subsection (6) to make it less wide, and introduce a far narrower provision for the reasons that I have already stated. Amendment No. 84 would insert in subsection (5) new wording, which will provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny. 
 Amendment No. 85 introduces a sunset subsection to the clause. On 17 March, there was a long debate in another place at columns GC58 and 59 on the advantages of sunset clauses, but there would be no benefit to be had from my repeating that debate at length. Conservative Members are of the view that it does no harm to introduce sunset provisions in new legislation. It gives an opportunity to reflect on how well the legislation is working, and to identify any problems. I place much faith in the advantages of sunset clauses because I am a parliamentarian who believes that we have too many laws in this country, and, all too often, laws are left on the statute book; nobody ever goes back and asks, ''Did we get it right?'' It is only when there are catastrophes, such as the Government's recent tax credits scheme and other things that they have got wrong and had to own up to in the past six years, that we have a review. It would be good to have a sunset clause in most legislation, and if I am ever successful in getting a high place in the private Members' ballot in the House of Commons—

Alan Hurst: Order. We cannot deal with the entire scope of legislation. Please restrict yourself to the amendment, Mr. Hawkins.

Nick Hawkins: Mr. Hurst, I have said enough to show the depth of my support for sunset clauses.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall likewise be brief. I generally agree with the hon. Gentleman on the broad scope of powers in the clause. It seems that we rehearse these arguments in every Committee. If anyone wants a full statement of my views, they will find them in the record of proceedings for the Proceeds of Crime, Enterprise, Extradition and Police (Northern Ireland) Bills. Otherwise, I am content to adopt the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.

Caroline Flint: The purpose of clause 92 is to allow the Secretary of State or, if the subject matter falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers to make consequential and incidental provisions that are necessary to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill. The clause is needed to ensure that the Bill functions properly when it comes into force and that the legislation is as effective as possible. I note that the tax credits that the Government introduced have taken 500,000 children out of poverty. I believe that that is a sign of effective legislation.
 I am well aware that the Opposition are suspicious of so-called Henry VIII powers. However, the Government have already listened carefully to their concerns in another place and tabled amendments to ensure that any orders amending Acts of Parliament under the clause will be subject to affirmative 
 resolution, while orders to amend secondary legislation will be subject to negative resolution. That is in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose judgment in such matters is greatly respected. 
 It may be useful if I start by reminding the Committee of the purpose of the powers in clause 92. ''Henry VIII powers'' is not an entirely appropriate name for such clauses, as it implies that they grant the Government sweeping powers to amend legislation at will, without Parliament having so much as a glance at what they are doing. We all know that that is not the case. The power in clause 92 concerns only supplementary and consequential provisions that fall within the scope of the Bill—it is no wider. It would be ultra vires to use the power in another way, and we have no intention of doing so. 
 However, it appears that the Opposition are not satisfied with that position. The effect of amendments Nos. 84 and 115 would be to ensure that any future statutory instruments making supplementary provisions to the Bill, regardless of whether they would amend primary or secondary legislation, would be subject to an affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure. 
 The Government resist the amendments on the ground that they would hamper the effective operation of the Bill. The effect of the amendments would be to clog up parliamentary time with debates on minor and technical statutory instruments, which would neither merit nor benefit from discussion. Any future amendments to the Bill should be subject to scrutiny that is proportionate to their scope. The amendments do not take that into account. 
 Amendment No. 114 would remove subsection (3), which clarifies that the powers in clause 92 can be used to amend primary or secondary legislation. I am not sure what the Opposition are seeking to achieve through the amendment, but it would hamper the clarity of the clause. 
 Finally, amendment No. 85 seeks a sunset clause on the power granted to the Secretary of State in clause 92 one year after the Bill comes into force. That would mean that any further amendments that were identified after that time would have to be made by primary legislation, whenever an opportunity arose. 
 I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, but I am unable to accept it. Limiting the duration of the power to a year after the commencement date of the Bill would restrict the possibility of identifying and then scheduling adequate parliamentary time to debate any subsequent amendments. Hon. Members will agree that the Bill, which amends a substantial amount of previous legislation, is highly complex. While every effort has been made to ensure that all consequential provisions have been accounted for, it is possible that others could arise; for example, in respect of the highly technical road traffic provisions in part 3. The need for consequential amendments may not come to light during the year after the Bill comes into force. If the power were to expire, we would be unable to make 
 changes that are necessary to make the legislation fully effective. 
 I am unable to accept the amendment for those reasons. The clause strikes an effective balance between providing an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while at the same time ensuring that parliamentary time is used effectively. Therefore, I urge the Opposition to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Perhaps I should have said at the outset that my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns said in another place that she was grateful to the Government for moving in our direction and introducing amendments to that effect, and Conservative Members appreciate that. We were hoping to introduce proposals for further parliamentary scrutiny but I shall not take time by pursuing the matter further and dividing the Committee.
 Before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I want to mention something that I noticed in the Minister's brief, although I do not blame her for it. Even in the Committee's final sitting, I am reminded that we in Parliament are protectors of the traditional use of the English language. Whoever wrote the brief decided that the word ''sunset'' can now be used as a verb. ''To sunset'' is a pretty appalling phrase. For X years I have heard Ministers turning the word ''scapegoat'' into a verb, and they did so when they were in Opposition. At the risk of being accused of being a grammatical pedant—when my party was in Government, I was referred to as the Finance Bill's grammatical conscience—I ask the Minister, somewhat tongue in cheek, to persuade her officials not to use the phrase ''to sunset'' in future briefings. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn 
 Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 - Commencement

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in
clause 93, page 62, line 4, at end insert— 
 '( ) Any day appointed for the purposes of Part 1 (other than sections 32 to 41), and the related amendments and repeals, is to be one decided by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 86, in 
clause 93, page 62, line 10, at end add— 
 '(4) No order shall be made under subsection (1) until— 
 (a) the Extradition Bill has received Royal Assent; and 
 (b) the Secretary of State has certified that the provisions of this Act and that Act are compatible.'.

Caroline Flint: I shall deal first with Government amendment No. 88, which refers to part 1 of the Bill, which deals with mutual assistance in criminal matters, and legislates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The amendment reflects the fact that the
 responsibility for the implementation of part 1 is now devolved to Scottish Ministers where the provisions apply to Scotland.
 The amendment ensures that UK and Scottish Ministers must consult and agree the same date for the commencement of the provisions of part 1. This is necessary as the provisions implement EU agreements which the UK has signed up to to participate in. All parts of the UK therefore must be ready to operate these agreements on the same date, otherwise we will be unable to fulfil our EU obligations. Different commencement arrangements would also create confusion. 
 The Scottish Executive have been consulted throughout the drafting and the passage of the Bill, and have been fully involved in shaping how the provisions will be implemented in Scotland. Officials north and south of the border have developed good relationships and will continue to consult to ensure that the provisions operate smoothly across the UK. 
 The amendments are in line with the devolution settlement. Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 states that while international relations is a reserved matter, 
''observing and implementing . . . obligations under Community law''
 is specifically excluded from the reservation. As criminal law remains a devolved matter, it is right therefore that Scottish Ministers should hold the responsibility for those provisions. 
 I shall delay my response to amendment No. 86 until the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has presented his argument.

Nick Hawkins: We do not have a problem with amendment No. 88. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who understands the devolution settlement and what happens north of the border far better than I do, can speak if he wishes to dispute what the Minister said, but I shall not do so. However, my study of the proposal and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has not revealed any problem, so we shall not oppose it.
 Amendment No. 86 is a brief provision, which relates to discussions—and battles—that I had with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who has no doubt returned happily and with relief to the Whips Office as Deputy Chief Whip. He and I had many battles on the Extradition Bill; I wanted a counterpart provision saying that neither this Bill nor the Extradition Bill should come into force until they were brought into harmony with one another. The Minister referred earlier to the fact that this Bill's provisions were different from those relating to the European arrest warrant, which her officials are well aware that Conservative Members violently oppose. That is why we said that the proposals should be interlinked, but I will not labour the point. I am sure that the Minister will resist our amendment, but I hope that she at least understands, and has had some briefing on, the reason why we advanced it. We spent more time discussing the matter during the proceedings of the Extradition Bill. At that time, I anticipated that the same Minister would deal with both Bills throughout, but the reshuffle has 
 supervened and this Minister now has the dubious pleasure of having to respond to our concerns.

Caroline Flint: We presume that amendment No. 86 arises from the Opposition's unfounded fear that, under the Extradition Bill, foreign officers will be granted powers to arrest UK citizens while carrying out cross-border surveillance operations under the Bill before us. That appears to relate to a confusion of what the Bill before us and the Extradition Bill permit. As Committee members will recall, during our lengthy discussions of clause 82 of this Bill we made it absolutely clear that foreign officers would not have any executive powers—in other words, powers of arrest, or search and seizure—while in the UK. The provisions permit foreign officers to carry out only surveillance operations in the UK, during which time they are not expected to make contact with suspects. The Bill was amended in Committee in the Lords to clarify that. Foreign officers will have no executive or coercive powers.
 Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman may recall from the lengthy discussions of the Extradition Bill that the Government have absolutely no plans to designate anyone other than a British law enforcement officer to execute warrants under the Extradition Bill. Arrests will be carried out only by British police officers or British law enforcement officers, such as members of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise or one of the services police forces. The Government amended the Extradition Bill to make that clear. 
 We are not convinced that the amendment would achieve what is intended. Preventing the commencement of the provisions of this Bill until the Extradition Bill receives Royal Assent would serve no purpose. The two pieces of legislation deal with entirely different circumstances and powers. As hon. Members will be aware, the thrust of this Bill is to improve the way in which we provide legal assistance to other countries, both within and beyond the EU. The Extradition Bill deals with reforming our current extradition proceedings. Both Bills implement European framework decisions, but that is where the similarities end. Parliamentary counsel, and those who instruct them, take great care to ensure that each new Act of Parliament sits carefully within the framework of existing legislation so that inconsistencies do not arise. 
 I hope that that answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and he will not press his amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 94 and 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Firearms: international co-operation and general duty of the Secretary of State

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to facilitate the work of— 
 (a) police forces in Great Britain; 
 (b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland; 
 (c) the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and 
 (d) the National Crime Squad; 
 in preventing the unlawful importation of firearms into the United Kingdom by ensuring effective international cooperation between those bodies and other foreign and international law enforcement agencies.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I will deal with this quite briefly. [Interruption.] I hear some support for that from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). I am conscious that this is the last sitting of the Committee and I do not want to detain hon. Members terribly long. I have a little more to say about the next new clause, but again it should not take too long—to the pleasure, I am sure, of the hon. Member for South Dorset. 
 I mentioned earlier that one of the advantages of being a shadow Home Office Minister is that one is able to receive confidential briefings from people such as the head of the National Crime Squad and the head of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Those briefings enable one to think quite carefully about some of the most serious types of violent crime and, particularly, about the importation of firearms. The Government have recognised the huge problem of the explosion of gun crime. The tragic deaths of two young women in a gang war—they were literally caught in the crossfire—led to the Home Secretary having what he called a gun summit. All kinds of promises were made about the crucial steps that the Government were taking. 
 The Bill is a useful opportunity. Clearly, the new clause is in order; otherwise, we would not have been allowed to table it and it would not have been selected for debate. It must fall under the long title of the Bill. We felt that there was no reason not to take the opportunity to add it to the Bill. It is a useful vehicle and reinforces the point that the Secretary of State should have that duty placed on him in relation to the import of firearms. I hope that the Minister will surprise us all on this last afternoon by standing up and saying that the Government entirely agree, and will accept the new clause. We wait to hear.

Caroline Flint: As the hon. Gentleman has outlined, all Committee members, and all our parties, take the issue of firearms seriously—as I think does the whole country. How they are used, even by people who have licences, and whether they are lawfully imported are important to us all. He will be fully aware that we already have some of the toughest gun controls in the world, because of the actions of this Government since they were elected in 1997. We have been working with the police to ensure good security of legally held weapons to prevent them being stolen, and we are looking at the need to establish stricter controls on deactivation standards.
 We are working very closely with our EU partners and with the various United Nations bodies. We are heavily engaged in ensuring that Governments and law enforcement agencies work together as closely as 
 possible, within our varying systems, so that any gaps are not exploited by those who organise and profit from criminal businesses. It is essential to tackle those problems as far upstream as possible, which is why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Department for International Development and other agencies are assisting Governments and law enforcement agencies in countries that are a source of the organised crime problems in this country. 
 The National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service play a key role in the intelligence-led approach to gun crime, in London as elsewhere. NCIS runs a national firearms-tracing service that provides intelligence on the source and use of guns used in crime. That will be complemented by a new, national, computerised forensic firearms intelligence database, set up with £1.4 million funding from the Home Office. 
 We have recently made changes to firearms legislation in the Criminal Justice and Anti-social Behaviour Bills. Some Members on this Committee who have been involved with those Bills will be aware of the firearms measures in them, which I shall briefly outline. The Criminal Justice Bill includes a provision to introduce a five-year minimum sentence for the illegal possession of prohibited weapons. The Anti-social Behaviour Bill will make it an offence to possess an air weapon or an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It includes measures to ban the sale, manufacture and import of firearms using self-contained air cartridge systems, such as Brocock, and to license those already held. 
 In short, the Government are wholly committed to tackling gun crime, and working internationally in support of that aim. That is why, despite its good intent, the new clause is unnecessary. It does not sit comfortably in the body of the Bill. We are committed, as is publicly known, to reviewing firearms legislation. The phraseology here might be more useful if there were to be new legislation. We all share concern about gun crime and the import of illegal weapons, and the Government are showing that they are very willing to tackle those issues head-on. The fact that we do not agree that this new clause should be added to the Bill in no way detracts from the good work that we have done to tackle problems in this field.

Nick Hawkins: I am sure that there is a huge amount of good intention on the part of Ministers and officials in the Home Office and, of course, of police forces throughout the country. Sad to say, however, the fact remains that if one talks to senior officers in law enforcement, they say that one of the things that they are most worried about is the ever-increasing use of guns in all types of crime. In particular, one hears that some organised criminals coming into this country from such countries as Albania are much more inclined that way than the admittedly serious criminals whom we have had here in the past. It has been said to me that the difference with the Albanians is that they literally, in the words of the old west, shoot first and ask questions afterwards. They seem to have no hesitation at all. Senior officers have suggested to
 me that Albanians are much more difficult serious, organised criminals to deal with than any others that the forces of law and order in this country have ever met. A further issue is the increased use of firearms by yardie criminals.
 I have said that there is plenty of good intent on the part of Home Office Ministers and their officials, but we all know, to use the old phrase, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Alistair Carmichael: A few short minutes ago—at least, according to the clock it was a few minutes ago; it seems a hell of a lot longer ago than that—the hon. Gentleman was telling the Committee that we have too many laws, and that too many of them are unnecessary. I wonder whether he would care to reflect on his words in relation to new clause 7. What does it really add?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman seeks to poke gentle fun by saying that I pointed out that we had too many laws. This law will be made anyway; we are talking about a Bill that will become an Act. The question is: what is in it? To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, our small new clause would give a clear duty to the Secretary of State.
 As I have said, the Government have lots of good intent, but what they are doing is not effective enough, because the situation in relation to gun crime in this country is getting worse, not better. Although the Minister has been in office for less than a week, she cannot escape the fact that the situation has got a lot worse since the Government came to power. The duty is on the Government to do something about that, and I think that the new clause would help.

Caroline Flint: The idea is often put about that guns are flooding into the country, but my information is that that is not the case. Having consulted the police, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and NCIS, I can say that there is no evidence to support that assertion. There is certainly no evidence of organised and large-scale smuggling; nor does there appear to be a single main source of the firearms held by criminals. Sources in recent years include theft from legitimate owners, the smuggling of individual weapons, conversion of deactivated or replica weapons, and trophies of war brought back by returning service personnel. It is important to make it clear that that is what evidence and research suggests; otherwise, we end up with sensational headlines that cause unnecessary fear and concern in communities.

Nick Hawkins: I know why the Minister is concerned about sensational headlines—because they damage the Government's opinion poll rating. I am sure that the Minister was saying what is written in her brief. It was probably headed, ''If pressed, say this''. I seriously suggest that as soon as her new ministerial duties allow, she has a personal one-to-one briefing with the heads of NCS and NCIS, as I have done. In particular, she should ask both of them what they say about the ruthlessness of Albanian gangsters, who are taking over, for example, the vice trade in central London and other cities. When she has done that, I suspect that she will not be quite so ready to read out the briefings
 that she is given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9 - The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

'( ) Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct that any provision of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 We are coming to the end of the proceedings, and, in the spirit of co-operation, I want to genuinely thank the new Minister for what she has done since she took over. I also put on record my thanks to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Hurst, and to other members of the Committee, particularly the other two Ministers, the hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).

David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will in a second.
 No doubt, there will be the usual courtesies when we finish and the Bill is passed to the other place. Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I wanted to set out why we tabled the new clause. 
 Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaking for the Liberal Democrats—and later, Lord Goodhart—put forward a clause similar to new clause 9. There was an interesting debate in which we were informed that the Government did not have the power to force such legislation on the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. 
 I have a personal insight into why Ministers are saying what they do on the subject. When Lord Williams of Mostyn had responsibility for such matters, I went with him to see the historic ceremonies of the opening of the Manx Parliament, Tynwald. Lord Williams thought that he was going to have a jolly weekend, but none of his officials had briefed him on the fact that emergency debates had been held in the Manx Parliament, and in Jersey and Guernsey, to consider the dramatic move of secession from the UK. Those three Parliaments in our Crown dependent territories had been outraged by the way that the Government had imposed the Edwards report, which investigated their banking and financial services, on them without any consultation. 
 On the weekend that we were in the Isle of Man, every time Lord Williams got up to address people on what would usually have been a ceremonial occasion, he was attacked right, left and centre, not only by the Manx politicians, but by guests from Jersey and Guernsey. I was pleased that, on the two occasions on which the matter was raised, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Filkin said, ''Well, of course we cannot impose this on the Crown dependencies.'' Those dependencies have learned a lesson from how 
 badly their fingers were burned. The Edwards report was announced very suddenly, without any of the normal consultation with Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, because the Government were in the first of the big holes into which they dug themselves about the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). He had to resign because of his involvement in offshore financial matters that he had not properly declared, and the report was announced early as a desperate attempt to get everyone off the hook. 
 I am not ignoring what Ministers have said in introducing new clause 9. I am sure that the Minister will have the same brief as her colleagues had in another place, which is that they cannot impose the Act on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I have tabled the new clause purely to probe and put on record the fact that I understand why Ministers are being so careful this time around—it is because they got it so badly wrong last time. I give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.

David Cairns: The moment has long since passed. I was not sure whether there was a statute of limitations on trying to intervene.
 The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he wanted to genuinely thank X, Y and Z. Given that he is the self-proclaimed grammatical pedant, I am sure that he would want to apologise sincerely for that gaffe.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he can now qualify himself as the grammatical conscience of the Labour Committee members. I should indeed have said that I wanted genuinely to thank, and I accept the correction entirely. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome begs to differ, but he can speak for himself. On this particular grammatical point, I am on the same side as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, and I will consider my wrists well and truly slapped.
 It is unusual for the Conservatives to introduce in the Commons a new clause that was introduced in the Lords by the Liberal Democrats, but I thought that it was worth getting this debate on the record. I know what the Minister will say and that I will accept her assertion that we cannot impose the Act on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, as I will represent Parliament in two weeks at the next Tynwald opening, it will be helpful to refer back to this debate. That is why I wanted to have it.

David Heath: I want to put on the record my belief that abhorrence of a split infinitive is an example of Victorian pomposity at its worst. It is a misunderstanding of the English infinitive, and what is good enough for the revised version is good enough for me.
 On the substance of the new clause, it has been a recurrent theme throughout our proceedings for me to ask about the position of the Crown territories and British overseas territories, although new clause 9 applies only to the Crown dependencies. 
 We must get our act together as a country with the Crown territories. If we are serious about defeating international financial and other crime, it is not acceptable for there to be areas within the responsibilities of the United Kingdom in its broadest sense in which the writ does not run for effective crime prevention and investigation. I understand entirely the constitutional problems of having parallel legislation in the Parliaments, Assemblies of the States and the Tynwald to achieve the same objectives, but it is vital that we have that; otherwise, we will fail in our duties as a member state of Schengen to achieve the comprehensive coverage and international co-operation that is required. I have absolute confidence that if another member state had territories that approximated to the European mainland but was not adhering to international agreements, we would be extremely critical of them.

Nick Hawkins: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and there is a particular example. We have been critical of some of the Spanish Government's actions in relation to their territories on the north coast of Africa—Ceuta and Melilla. One of the arguments that those of us in the House who support Gibraltar retaining its current status—the Gibraltarian people have just voted by a massive majority to keep their current status—make is that the Spanish Government's treatment of Ceuta and Melilla is not consistent with their approach to Gibraltar. Is that not a very good example, in terms not only of financial matters and controlling fraud and crime but of constitutional matters, that bears out the hon. Gentleman's point?

David Heath: To a certain extent it is a good example. Ceuta and Melilla are, however, treated as parts of metropolitan Spain for the purposes of its domestic law, whereas we do not treat our Crown dependencies as part of metropolitan United Kingdom—if that is the appropriate term—as far as our jurisdictions are concerned, which poses a problem.
 As I said, I do not seek the full integration of the Crown dependencies into the United Kingdom jurisdiction. While we take responsibility for the foreign policies of those Crown dependencies, however, it is incumbent on us to find ways to implement the treaty obligations and international agreements that we enter into. Whether those agreements fight crime in general, financial crime in particular or terrorism, which is one of the reasons for the Bill, we must find ways to bring the law in Crown dependencies into accordance, as far as possible, with UK law. It is, however, beyond the competence of Parliament to do that. The hon. Gentleman's new clause—he will forgive me for saying this—is an artificial construct. I know that he understands that it is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to negotiate with the Crown dependencies in order to encourage their support and involvement. Nevertheless, the responsibility is heavy. 
 I have asked the Minister a number of questions about that issue. She is going to write me a compendious letter telling me everything there is to know about the relationships with the various territories. In all seriousness, I ask her to take the 
 issue forward because we risk our domestic arrangements appearing to be less than complete when we fail to address those problems. We have been rightly criticised in the past on, for example, the law in Gibraltar not being what we would wish it to be to deal with finance and smuggling. Spain took the opportunity to make a valid argument against us, which I did not like because we should be able to negotiate from a position of strength. 
 Similarly, the British overseas territories in the Caribbean do not always behave as we would like them to, given the various international criminal activities that take place in that sphere. Nearer home, the Schengen agreement does not extend to the Crown dependencies, but its spirit surely should. We should encourage as much correspondence as possible on those laws.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office having an opportunity to negotiate those matters further. However, Lord Wallace of Saltaire inadvertently pointed out in the debate in another place that the Home Office is dealing with the Crown dependencies. He was corrected by the Minister in another place, who said that the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible. Since those remarks were made, however, there has been a botched reshuffle, and apparently the Department for Constitutional Affairs will take responsibility. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify whether the new so-called super Department with a new Tony crony in charge will still deal with the Crown dependencies?

Alan Hurst: Order. The clause is narrowly defined through the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I see no reference to Cabinet reshuffles.

David Heath: You are absolutely right, Mr. Hurst. I have no intention of being drawn down that route because we have had enough discussion of that particular subject over the past couple of days.
 As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will know, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was responsible for producing the White Paper on the future governance of dependent and overseas territories. It therefore takes a continued interest in this area. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that now the Department for Constitutional Affairs must take an interest, as must the Home Office, in ensuring the security of the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Caroline Flint: The effect of the amendment would be to make provisions in the Bill capable of extension to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. A provision such as the amendment suggests can be included in UK legislation only after consultation with the islands and with their consent. It cannot be done unilaterally, as the amendment would require. Unlike purely domestic legislation, it is not appropriate to include such a provision where the Bill is enacting our EU obligations. Unlike standard Community business, where territorial extent is defined by treaty, third pillar co-operation, which is implemented by the Bill, has no specific territorial application. The
 inclusion of Gibraltar and the islands in an instrument is considered with our European partners at the time it is negotiated, and their inclusion can be specified in the instrument where that is agreed. As the islands have chosen not to participate in the measures covered by the Bill, we cannot use the Bill to change that situation.
 The Crown dependencies were not consulted about the inclusion of a permissive extent clause in the Bill, as they customarily enact their own laws in the field of criminal justice. They have separate legal and judicial systems, which the UK Government respect. It is exceptional these days for UK legislation to be capable of extension to the Crown dependencies, save in a few areas such as immigration. A copy of the Bill will be sent to the islands once it receives Royal Assent, and it will be for them to decide if there is anything in it that they might want to copy into their own legislation. That does not mean that the islands are unable to provide similar assistance to that set out in the Bill. They have a raft of insular legislation that largely mirrors ours in areas such as judicial co-operation, terrorism, money laundering and fraud. 
 The Department for Constitutional Affairs will take responsibility for the Channel Islands. This week, officials there have been contacted in response to this matter. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the time being, and that he withdraws his amendment. Obviously, this is an important area in relation to tackling international crime, and it needs to be clear.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister's comments satisfy me. They also appear to satisfy the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
 It has been useful to put this debate on the record, as the Government need to be aware that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on behalf of his party and I on behalf of mine will keep our eagle eyes on this matter. We are always conscious of the sensitivities of our important Crown dependencies. All the people on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man who deal with financial services are concerned about this; they want to help the UK authorities tackle international crime—financial fraud, drugs smuggling and all other types of crime. 
 As the Minister rightly said, those dependencies have their own legislation. She confirmed what Ministers said in another place, but it was helpful to have her comments on the record. I am grateful to her for the courteous way in which she has responded. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Caroline Flint: Before we complete our proceedings, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Hurst, and Mr. Benton for the way in which you have chaired our sittings. I am sure that you chaired them as effectively, professionally and smoothly when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East was
 leading proceedings. My hon. Friend has been of great support to me. Since I found out this week that I would be taking on this Bill, he has been very helpful. He has also been a good friend in giving reassurance. I have found that most Committee members do not know as much as I do because I am given the briefs.
 I thank the officials who have assisted us throughout proceedings, and the members of Hansard. I also thank the police officers who have been in attendance during the past two days—I hope that they have found it interesting to know exactly what UK police officers may be able to do in future, and what foreign police officers can do in this country. No doubt they are thinking that there will be yet more tasks for them along with everything else. 
 As all Committee members would agree, it is important to tackle the area addressed by the Bill. Not to tackle it would be incredibly short-sighted. Crime is becoming much more sophisticated and technical, and communications assist crime. Our ability to work co-operatively with our European neighbours demonstrates that, although we have a strong voice in Europe, working with Europe will make us stronger. Together we can do something to combat crime. 
 I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and his colleagues, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who has led for his party, and all Committee members on the Opposition Benches. Overall, they have treated me kindly in my first week as a Minister, and I thank them for that. We had a little spat earlier today, but politics would not be politics without a few of those. I also thank my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee for their support. It is very much appreciated. It might not seem like it now, but the Bill will play an important part in our drive to tackle crime. 
 I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Government Whip, who has supported me ably, as always. Considering how disruptive he might have thought that I was on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, he has been a fantastic support this afternoon. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank my team—everyone who has been involved in the preparation of the Bill, those who have given me advice this week and those from my private office. It has been a daunting week. We have managed to get through it and I hope that we have contributed to some good legislation that will tackle a matter that we earnestly want to address—the way in which international crime can operate. We have done a good job throughout the sittings of the Committee and I thank everyone for their support in this, my first week as a Minister.

Nick Hawkins: May I, in turn, thank the Minister and echo the thanks that she has given to Hansard, the doorkeepers, the police and all the officials. Most of all, Mr. Hurst, I thank you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton. I hope that you will pass on our thanks to him. This has been a good Committee and by and large, as the Minister has said, a good-natured one. I think that she has had a good start. She has praised not only her officials and her team, but also her
 predecessor the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, who is now a Government deputy Chief Whip. All Conservative members of the Committee would like to thank him for the work that he did when he was Under-Secretary. I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on our thanks to him. I was not at all surprised that he was promoted; he became more good-humoured as time went on. On a recent occasion he said that he was risking his future by describing a brief that he had been given as complete garbage. I thought that he must know that he was going to be promoted, or he would not have dared to say that.
 I do not know whether I am giving a straw in the wind to the hon. Lady, but I genuinely want to thank her and to say that we all know that it is daunting to suddenly take over as a Minister; promoted, as she said, from being a very disruptive Back Bencher on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill Committee only two or three weeks ago, when she spoke in support of amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I proposed on such difficult issues as travellers. With this Government, Mr. Hurst, you never know what will lead to promotion. I am sure that that is a signal to many of the hon. Lady's Back-Bench colleagues. It is not always slavish sticking to the party line that gets one noticed. [Interruption.] I thought that that might provoke a response from the Government Whip. He knows that sometimes people who are disruptive get noticed too. 
 I also thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The Liberal Democrats always bring something to our debate, even if we are not sure in which direction they are going next. I genuinely enjoy serving on Committees with the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Orkney and Shetland. They are two of those whom I regard as the slightly more sensible wing of their party. I thank my hon. Friends, our Whip who cannot be with us at this moment and, most of all, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. We operate as a successful double act. We have done it on a number of Bills, and I hope that we shall carry on doing so, although it is not in my hands to guarantee it.

David Heath: I associate myself with everything that has been said in the mini-Oscar ceremonies with which
 the previous speakers have concluded. I want to thank you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Hurst, for the way in which you have presided over our proceedings, and everyone else associated with the Committee.
 This has been one of those Bills that has to be classified as worthy but dull. Even with our best intent, we found it difficult to enliven the proceedings—until this morning, when my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland suddenly saw the light, realised how interesting it was and wanted to contribute at every opportunity. I am grateful to him for his active support. 
 Three Ministers have been involved. The Under-Secretary has acquitted herself extremely well in her first week. I found her predecessor as Minister helpful in his approach. I wish him well with his new responsibilities. I am grateful to the Lord Commissioner for his assistance—is this our third Bill together? The Home Office is so legislatively incontinent; as soon as we have finished one Bill, another comes along. Indeed, next week the Courts Bill comes to Committee. 
 The Bill has been put to bed. On the whole, it is a worthy Bill. Some areas are still contentious, and I fear that unless we see a little movement, it will continue to go from one House to the other for some time. I say that not as a warning but as a prediction. It would be in everyone's interests if we could reach agreement on the outstanding areas of contention, so that we do not have to watch the Bill travelling between both Houses—a journey that several Bills will be doing. I thank all concerned. We look forward to the remaining stages when the Bill returns to the House.

Alan Hurst: I regret to say that almost all those remarks were out of order. However, making that ruling gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the kind remarks made about the Chair. I congratulate all hon. Members on the way in which they have conducted themselves during our consideration of the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-one minutes past Four o'clock.